Aqj Apparels Private Limited v. Mmunna Garments

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.12.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and CMP No.15084 of 2023 M/s.AQJ Apparels Pvt. Ltd Rep.by its Managing Director Mr.Shiraj Abdulgani Patanwala No.31A Thiru Vi Ka Nagar North 1st Street College Road Tirupur 641 602 Tamil Nadu : Appellant versus 1.M/s.MMUNNA Garments Rep by its Proprietor Mr.Mohammed Kalith 19/20A Royapuram Main Road Tirupur 641 601 2.Sri Srinivasa Tex Old No.12 Singara Garden 8th lane, (Opp to KCS Girls School) Old Washermenpet Chennai 21 : Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed against the Judgment passed by the Honble Court in

A.No.2100 of 2023 in C.S.(COMM DIV) No.247 of 2022 dated 12-06-2023. For Appellant :

Mr.G.Ramesh For Respondent No.1 :

Mr.A.Swaminathan, for Mr.S.Suresh Kumar For Respondent No.2 :

Mr.J.Ganesh, for Mr.R.Thirumoorthy

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Yesterday, the following order was passed:

"Shri Swaminathan, counsel for first respondent, states that the advocates who had appeared for second defendant in the trial court are from the same office of the advocate for plaintiff as well, who is the appellant before us.

2. In short, counsel for first respondent, who was first defendant in the suit, states the entire cause of action was based on an invoice and goods sold by second defendant and advocate for second defendant and plaintiff's advocate are from the same office and it is, therefore, a collusive suit.

3. Shri G.Ramesh denies and states he has nothing to do with Mr.R.Vishal and Ms.H.Alice Bibiana, who have filed vakalatnama for second defendant.

4. Shri Swaminathan stands his ground.

Therefore, notice be issued to Mr.R.Vishal and Ms.H.Alice Bibiana to remain present in court, so that the court could verify the truth. Shri Swaminathan states he shall inform Mr.R.Vishal and Ms.H.Alice

Bibiana about this order.

List on 17.12.2024."

2. Today, when the matter was called out, Mr.Ramesh sought leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal.

3. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the interim application also stands disposed of.

4. Counsel for respondents is justified in pressing for cost.

5. We direct appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as cost for this appeal. Cost shall be paid within two weeks from today. Failing to pay cost will be viewed as deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order of this Court and respondents may move for contempt against appellant as well as its directors. (K.R.SHRIRAM, CJ.) (SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.) 17.12.2024 Index : Yes/No

: Yes/No tar

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY , J.

(tar) 17.12.2024